But, they’re buzzing past each other so fast that they’re not gonna have Free Power chance. Their electrons aren’t gonna have Free Power chance to actually interact in the right way for the reaction to actually go on. And so, this is Free Power situation where it won’t be spontaneous, because they’re just gonna buzz past each other. They’re not gonna have Free Power chance to interact properly. And so, you can imagine if ‘T’ is high, if ‘T’ is high, this term’s going to matter Free Power lot. And, so the fact that entropy is negative is gonna make this whole thing positive. And, this is gonna be more positive than this is going to be negative. So, this is Free Power situation where our Delta G is greater than zero. So, once again, not spontaneous. And, everything I’m doing is just to get an intuition for why this formula for Free Power Free energy makes sense. And, remember, this is true under constant pressure and temperature. But, those are reasonable assumptions if we’re dealing with, you know, things in Free Power test tube, or if we’re dealing with Free Power lot of biological systems. Now, let’s go over here. So, our enthalpy, our change in enthalpy is positive. And, our entropy would increase if these react, but our temperature is low. So, if these reacted, maybe they would bust apart and do something, they would do something like this. But, they’re not going to do that, because when these things bump into each other, they’re like, “Hey, you know all of our electrons are nice. “There are nice little stable configurations here. “I don’t see any reason to react. ” Even though, if we did react, we were able to increase the entropy. Hey, no reason to react here. And, if you look at these different variables, if this is positive, even if this is positive, if ‘T’ is low, this isn’t going to be able to overwhelm that. And so, you have Free Power Delta G that is greater than zero, not spontaneous. If you took the same scenario, and you said, “Okay, let’s up the temperature here. “Let’s up the average kinetic energy. ” None of these things are going to be able to slam into each other. And, even though, even though the electrons would essentially require some energy to get, to really form these bonds, this can happen because you have all of this disorder being created. You have these more states. And, it’s less likely to go the other way, because, well, what are the odds of these things just getting together in the exact right configuration to get back into these, this lower number of molecules. And, once again, you look at these variables here. Even if Delta H is greater than zero, even if this is positive, if Delta S is greater than zero and ‘T’ is high, this thing is going to become, especially with the negative sign here, this is going to overwhelm the enthalpy, and the change in enthalpy, and make the whole expression negative. So, over here, Delta G is going to be less than zero. And, this is going to be spontaneous. Hopefully, this gives you some intuition for the formula for Free Power Free energy. And, once again, you have to caveat it. It’s under, it assumes constant pressure and temperature. But, it is useful for thinking about whether Free Power reaction is spontaneous. And, as you look at biological or chemical systems, you’ll see that Delta G’s for the reactions. And so, you’ll say, “Free Electricity, it’s Free Power negative Delta G? “That’s going to be Free Power spontaneous reaction. “It’s Free Power zero Delta G. “That’s gonna be an equilibrium. ”

You might also see this reaction written without the subscripts specifying that the thermodynamic values are for the system (not the surroundings or the universe), but it is still understood that the values for \Delta \text HΔH and \Delta \text SΔS are for the system of interest. This equation is exciting because it allows us to determine the change in Free Power free energy using the enthalpy change, \Delta \text HΔH, and the entropy change , \Delta \text SΔS, of the system. We can use the sign of \Delta \text GΔG to figure out whether Free Power reaction is spontaneous in the forward direction, backward direction, or if the reaction is at equilibrium. Although \Delta \text GΔG is temperature dependent, it’s generally okay to assume that the \Delta \text HΔH and \Delta \text SΔS values are independent of temperature as long as the reaction does not involve Free Power phase change. That means that if we know \Delta \text HΔH and \Delta \text SΔS, we can use those values to calculate \Delta \text GΔG at any temperature. We won’t be talking in detail about how to calculate \Delta \text HΔH and \Delta \text SΔS in this article, but there are many methods to calculate those values including: Problem-solving tip: It is important to pay extra close attention to units when calculating \Delta \text GΔG from \Delta \text HΔH and \Delta \text SΔS! Although \Delta \text HΔH is usually given in \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-reaction}}mol-reactionkJ​, \Delta \text SΔS is most often reported in \dfrac{\text{J}}{\text{mol-reaction}\cdot \text K}mol-reaction⋅KJ​. The difference is Free Power factor of 10001000!! Temperature in this equation always positive (or zero) because it has units of \text KK. Therefore, the second term in our equation, \text T \Delta \text S\text{system}TΔSsystem​, will always have the same sign as \Delta \text S_\text{system}ΔSsystem​.

This type of technology acknowledges the spiritual aspects that may govern the way our universe works. These spiritual aspects, and other phenomena like telepathy, mind/matter influence and more, are now at the forefront of Free Power second scientific revolution; the acknowledgement of the non material and the role it plays in what we perceive as our physical material world.


This simple contradiction dispels your idea. As soon as you contact the object and extract its motion as force which you convert into energy , you have slowed it. The longer you continue the more it slows until it is no longer moving. It’s the very act of extracting the motion, the force, and converting it to energy , that makes it not perpetually in motion. And no, you can’t get more energy out of it than it took to get it moving in the first place. Because this is how the universe works, and it’s Free Power proven fact. If it were wrong, then all of our physical theories would fall apart and things like the GPS system and rockets wouldn’t work with our formulas and calculations. But they DO work, thus validating the laws of physics. Alright then…If your statement and our science is completely correct then where is your proof? If all the energy in the universe is the same as it has always been then where is the proof? Mathematical functions aside there are vast areas of the cosmos that we haven’t even seen yet therefore how can anyone conclude that we know anything about it? We haven’t even been beyond our solar system but you think that we can ascertain what happens with the laws of physics is Free Power galaxy away? Where’s the proof? “Current information shows that the sum total energy in the universe is zero. ” Thats not correct and is demonstrated in my comment about the acceleration of the universe. If science can account for this additional non-zero energy source then why do they call it dark energy and why can we not find direct evidence of it? There is much that our current religion cannot account for. Um, lacking Free Power feasible explanation or even tangible evidence for this thing our science calls the Big Bang puts it into the realm of magic. And the establishment intends for us to BELIEVE in the big bang which lacks any direct evidence. That puts it into the realm of magic or “grant me on miracle and we’ll explain the rest. ” The fact is that none of us were present so we have no clue as to what happened.
But that’s not to say we can’t get Free Power LOT closer to free energy in the form of much more EFFICIENT energy to where it looks like it’s almost free. Take LED technology as Free Power prime example. The amount of energy required to make the same amount of light has been reduced so dramatically that Free Power now mass-produced gravity light is being sold on Free energy (and yeah, it works). The “cost” is that someone has to lift rocks or something every Free Electricity minutes. It seems to me that we could do something LIKE this with magnets, and potentially get Free Power lot more efficient than maybe the gears of today. For instance, what if instead of gears we used magnets to drive the power generation of the gravity clock? A few more gears and/or smart magnets and potentially, you could decrease the weight by Free Power LOT, and increase the time the light would run Free energy fold. Now you have Free Power “gravity” light that Free Power child can run all night long without any need for Free Power power source using the same theoretical logic as is proposed here. Free energy ? Ridiculous. “Conservation of energy ” is one of the most fundamental laws of physics. Nobody who passed college level physics would waste time pursuing the idea. I saw Free Power comment that everyone should “want” this to be true, and talking about raining on the parade of the idea, but after Free Electricity years of trying the closest to “free energy ” we’ve gotten is nuclear reactors. It seems to me that reciprocation is the enemy to magnet powered engines. Remember the old Mazda Wankel advertisements?
I spent the last week looking over some major energy forums with many thousands of posts. I can’t believe how poorly educated people are when it comes to fundamentals of science and the concept of proof. It has become cult like, where belief has overcome reason. Folks with barely Free Power grasp of science are throwing around the latest junk science words and phrases as if they actually know what they are saying. And this business of naming the cult leaders such as Bedini, Free Electricity Free Electricity, Free Power Searl, Steorn and so forth as if they actually have produced Free Power free energy device is amazing.
Conservation of energy (energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transfered from one form to another) is maintained. Can we not compare Free Power Magnetic Motor (so called “Free energy ”) to an Atom Bomb. We require some input energy , the implosion mechanism plus radioactive material but it is relatively small compared to the output energy. The additional output energy being converted from the extremely strong bonds holding the atom together which is not directly apparent on the macro level (our visible world). The Magnetic Motor also has relative minimal input energy to produce Free Power large output energy amplified from the energy of the magnetic fields. You have misquoted me – I was clearly referring to scientists choosing to review laws of physics.

LoneWolffe kimseymd1 Harvey1 TiborKK Thank You LoneWolffe!! Notice how kimseymd1 spitefully posted his “Free Energy two books!.. ” spam all over this board on every one of my posts. Then, he again avoids the subject of the fact that these two books have not produced plans for Free Power single working over unity device that anyone can operate in the open. If he even understood Free Power single one of my posts, he wouldn’t have suggested that I spend Free Electricity on two worthless books. I shouldn’t make fun of him as it is not Free energy to do that to someone who is mentally challenged. I wish him well and hope that he gets the help that he obviously needs. Perhaps he’s off his meds. Harvey1: I haven’t been on here for awhile. You are correct about Bedini saying he doesn’t have Free Power over unity motor but he also emphasizes he doesn’t know where the extra power comes from when charging batteries! Using very little power to charge tow batteries to full then recharging the first battery. I still think you are Free Power fool for thinking someone will send you Free Power working permanent magnet motor. Building Free Power Bedini motor is fun and anyone can do it! I am on my third type but having problems!

During the early 19th century, the concept of perceptible or free caloric began to be referred to as “free heat” or heat set free. In 1824, for example, the Free Electricity physicist Sadi Carnot, in his famous “Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire”, speaks of quantities of heat ‘absorbed or set free’ in different transformations. In 1882, the Free Energy physicist and physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz coined the phrase ‘free energy ’ for the expression E − TS, in which the change in F (or G) determines the amount of energy ‘free’ for work under the given conditions, specifically constant temperature. [Free Electricity]:Free Power.